... Bush has said the entitlement program is in a crisis that can best be dealt with by giving younger workers the chance to invest in personal investment accounts. But California Republican Bill Thomas says Congress should also consider basing benefits on factors like race, sex and employment record ...
http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=2845847Meet the Press with Tim Russert
Transcript for Jan. 23
Guests: Ambassador John Negroponte, Rep. Bill Thomas, Stephen Hayes and Robin WrightNBC News
Updated: 11:04 a.m. ET Jan. 23, 2005
<snip> MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you something else you said at the National Journal Forum that raised some eyebrows: "Women are living longer relative to men today than they were in 1940. Yet, we never ever have debated gender-adjusting Social Security. ...But, at some point if the age difference continues to separate and more women are in the workforce and you have more of an equality of pay structure in the workforce, at some point somebody might want to suggest that we need to take a look at the question of whether or not actuarially we ought to adjust who gets what, when, and how."
A gender adjustment--what does that mean?
REP. THOMAS: Well, it was one of my ways of getting people to focus on the issue of age. To move from 65 to 68, which we did in 1983, was a benefit cut. But it also creates hardships based upon the occupation that you have, and it creates inequities on who you are and how long you live. You could just as easily have a discussion about occupations as to when would be a fair or an unfair time to require. We also need to examine, frankly, Tim, the question of race in terms of how many years of retirement do you get based upon your race? And you ought not to just leave gender off the table because that would be a factor. <snip>
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6853606/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
